If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Obama said it. People say he is such a great orator, then be prepared to have his speeches looked at closely. He said a "civilian national security force" he did not say "peace force" that does not sound like the peace corps / boys scouts or any other current "force". Especially when he talks about funding them as well as the military.
w
I suppose I should put his entire speech up so you folks can read through the whole thing so you don't think anyone is trying to take things out of context. I was speaking specifically of this one line. Even taken in its context it still worth discussing.

That said, ONE: I hope Mr. Obama has received enough criticism to consider the chilling nature of his statement, even out of context, and that he will continue to; and TWO, I'm still not sure I like the potential consequences of a large corps of civilian volunteers (mostly young and idealistic) who serve the broad agenda of ANY elected administration, this one, the next one, the one after that...

My Right and Left are getting confused again. Terrible vertigo. I need to go lie down.

I'm still not sure I like the potential consequences of a large corps of civilian volunteers (mostly young and idealistic) who serve the broad agenda of ANY elected administration, this one, the next one, the one after that...

My Right and Left are getting confused again. Terrible vertigo. I need to go lie down.

I view it all as rhetoric. Remember Gorge H. W. Bush? Here is an excerpt from his inaugural address. What ever became of his 1000 points of light?

The old solution, the old way, was to think that public money alone could end these problems. But we have learned that is not so. And in any case, our funds are low. We have a deficit to bring down. We have more will than wallet; but will is what we need. We will make the hard choices, looking at what we have and perhaps allocating it differently, making our decisions based on honest need and prudent safety. And then we will do the wisest thing of all: We will turn to the only resource we have that in times of need always grows—the goodness and the courage of the American people. 14
I am speaking of a new engagement in the lives of others, a new activism, hands-on and involved, that gets the job done. We must bring in the generations, harnessing the unused talent of the elderly and the unfocused energy of the young. For not only leadership is passed from generation to generation, but so is stewardship. And the generation born after the Second World War has come of age. 15
I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

While reading what you posted there Buzz I still don’t understand how the Americorps translates into a security force, and a “powerful” one at that. What am I missing? Please help me understand, because that statement is scary. I don’t want a powerful security force made up of a bunch of radical hippies running around. Dosen't sound like he is talking about the peace corps to me....

Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
Corey Burke

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

I would like one reason why we need this force.

I believe it exists & is called "Homeland Security" for wont of a better term.

Why would we add another layer to the system? Just think of the potential of a group of lefty "idealists" at the beck & call of the those who want to remain in charge.

While reading what you posted there Buzz I still don’t understand how the Americorps translates into a security force, and a “powerful” one at that. What am I missing? Please help me understand, because that statement is scary. I don’t want a powerful security force made up of a bunch of radical hippies running around. Dosen't sound like he is talking about the peace corps to me....

I don't know, it might have something to do with this little bit that I picked up off his website under issues/defense.

Develop Whole of Government Initiatives to Promote Global Stability Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts:
An Obama-Biden administration will build up the capacity of each non-Pentagon agency to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, to help move soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out of civilian roles.

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC):
An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.

Here is a good primer on liberal thinking about winning the cold war and how it's lessons might be applied to the middle east. It talks about why we need to throw military and civilian efforts at the problem and not rely only on the military.

I voted for McCain, but every time he came up with a stupid idea or said something I did not agree with I was willing to say he was wrong.

Why is it the followers of Obama can never discuss or criticize some of his bonehead ideas? Are you all just sheep?

Do you really believe in everything he stands for?

I asked for discussion and yes I mentioned Black Panthers but I could not think of another organization that I would consider a Civilian Security Force but here are others; the Guardian Angles, Black Water, and I am sure I could name some others from other countries but so far the list does not look like people I want running around my country providing security.

Maybe you folks that think like Obama could give me a few examples of a Security Force that you would be comfortable with besides what we have in place.

Lets see, in in my place of residence we have

Block watch
Local Police
Sheriff
Department of Public Safety
National Guard
Dept of Homeland Security
FBI
CIA
Border Patrol
Other
Military
Army
Air Force
Navy